Skip to comments.
Proposal: Have children or annul
Waterbury Republican-American ^
| February 6, 2007
| Rachel La Corte (A.P.)
Posted on 02/06/2007 10:02:28 AM PST by Graybeard58
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-86 next last
To: Graybeard58
They are really pushing their luck here.
2
posted on
02/06/2007 10:03:30 AM PST
by
3AngelaD
(ic.)
To: Graybeard58
Attack of the gay brigade!
3
posted on
02/06/2007 10:04:10 AM PST
by
edcoil
(Reality doesn't say much - doesn't need too)
To: Graybeard58
This is the best they can do to counter the argument that the best type of home for children is one with a mother and a father? Talk about simpletons.
4
posted on
02/06/2007 10:06:34 AM PST
by
SoldierDad
(Proud Father of a 2nd BCT 10th Mountain Soldier fighting the terrorists in Iraq)
To: Graybeard58
WTF!!!
Better pass a law stopping abortion while at it.
To: Graybeard58
Giuliani and his gay agenda types would love to push this on a national level!
6
posted on
02/06/2007 10:09:31 AM PST
by
Fierce Allegiance
("Campers laugh at clowns behind closed doors." GOHUNTER08!)
To: Graybeard58
All other marriages in the state would be defined as "unrecognized," making Then the gays would be not be able to be married in the first place because it would be impossible for the "couple" to produce a child.
7
posted on
02/06/2007 10:10:31 AM PST
by
frogjerk
(REUTERS: We give smoke and mirrors a bad name)
To: Graybeard58
This group calls itself the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance??? They're not just absurd, but Orwellian.
To: Graybeard58
Okay, let's raise taxes to 100% then. Two can play this game...
9
posted on
02/06/2007 10:10:57 AM PST
by
Tzimisce
(How Would Mohammed Vote? Hillary for President! www.dndorks.com)
To: Fierce Allegiance
But what about a "woman's right to choose"?
10
posted on
02/06/2007 10:11:00 AM PST
by
massgopguy
(I owe everything to George Bailey)
To: Graybeard58
11
posted on
02/06/2007 10:12:27 AM PST
by
Aliska
To: edcoil
I don't think we should jump to conclusions...As a single man, this could save me a lot of money (ring, eventual divorce) and be a good comeback when my girlfriend starts pushing in that direction... :)
12
posted on
02/06/2007 10:12:32 AM PST
by
shotgun
To: Graybeard58
Gays are absolutely insane...as if anyone will see this as anything other than sour grapes. Pathetic.
13
posted on
02/06/2007 10:13:42 AM PST
by
xuberalles
(Anti-Liberal Novelties, Titillating Tees! http://www.cafepress.com/titillatingtees)
To: Graybeard58
Gotta respect the ingenuity at play here. Once they've gotten the point across that marriage is about much more than procreation, then they go after the idea of 'the sanctity of marriage'. Of course 'sanctity' is defined as 'the quality of being holy'. Once you have the state determining what is 'holy' and what isn't it is squarely in religious territory, which according the the doctrine of seperation of chruch and state is unconstitutional.
14
posted on
02/06/2007 10:15:10 AM PST
by
contemplator
(Capitalism gets no Rock Concerts)
To: massgopguy
Why would the Catholic Church annul a marriage at the behest of homosexuals? Only the church can annul a marriage. Maybe "annul" like the word "marriage" is misunderstood by the master race.
15
posted on
02/06/2007 10:16:40 AM PST
by
massgopguy
(I owe everything to George Bailey)
To: massgopguy
Do you mean crushing a babies skull and sucking it out brains first?
16
posted on
02/06/2007 10:17:32 AM PST
by
Fierce Allegiance
("Campers laugh at clowns behind closed doors." GOHUNTER08!)
To: massgopguy
"But what about a "woman's right to choose"?"
POST OF THE FREAKING DAY AWARD!
17
posted on
02/06/2007 10:18:59 AM PST
by
poobear
(Carter & Clinton - 'The Latter Day Church Of Jew Haters & Horndogs')
To: massgopguy
Only the church can annul a marriage
If your religion tells you that then fine, but the government has been in that business for a long time.
18
posted on
02/06/2007 10:20:13 AM PST
by
contemplator
(Capitalism gets no Rock Concerts)
To: Graybeard58
"social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation."
Sole purpose? I don't think I've heard anybody say that.
To: massgopguy
>>>Why would the Catholic Church annul a marriage at the behest of homosexuals?
Allow me to clarify. Not the Catholic Church. The State.
I've already run into the rabbit hole in Blue Jersey.
The State will no longer recognize a marriage certificate issued by a religious institute as a legal document.
The States will have to only recognize marriages under a Civil Certificate.
See?
20
posted on
02/06/2007 10:20:44 AM PST
by
Calpernia
(Breederville.com)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-86 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson